Re: simple, standardized privacy policy discovery

Thanks for the update James,

This is a topic we aim to dive into at a meetup in London on the Monday Oct 28th. 

Top of the discussion list is automatic discovery of policy and of notice based services like Common Terms, TOS:Dr, TOSSBACK, Disconnect  etc. 

It's pretty clear that smart and open notice is needed for compliance and information control both online (do not track etc) and for physical spaces, with the emerging internet of things and emerging bluetooth enabled spaces there is also a growing marketing for smart notices to personalise and contextualise services. 

If anyone is interested in attending or dropping in virtually please let me know. 

Best Regards, 

Mark

PS. We are also organsing a meal and short presentation on the Sunday evening (Oct 27th) after Mozfest in London if anyone is interested just let me know and I will send you the details when I have them



On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:50, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> That text was inserted to make a few reviewers happy. Even if it is a bit of a tautology, I've often found that restating the obvious is important when writing specs.
> 
> As for why this is informational rather than standards track, the simple answer is that it makes no difference. The IANA registry for link relations does not give relations from standards track docs any more weight than relations from informational docs.
> 
> - James
> 
> On Oct 15, 2013 7:43 AM, "Edward W. Felten" <felten@cs.princeton.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Mark Lizar <info@smartspecies.com> wrote:
> This  is a great update on Notice discovery. 
> 
> I noticed in option 3 RFC - there is a note. 
> 
> Note that in the absence of clear legal obligations placed on an
>    entity, either through contract or law, the presence of a "privacy-
>    policy" link does not constitute a legally binding obligation on the
>    part of the service.  The linked resource can only be interpreted as
>    a description of the expected practice.
> 
> 
> I would disagree that there is an absence of clear legal obligation.  
> 
> Actually, the quoted text seems like a tautology: in the absence of a legal obligation, there is no legal obligation.   It seems better to say that it is not the role of this document to say what legal obligations, if any, might apply.